letter to the Times Nov 2nd., 07

[jimboloco]

I read Sebastian Mallaby's assessment of Senator Clinton's real-politic courageousness, "Clinton rises above Bush hatred" (Oct.31, 2007) and have to say that I can not let this distinguished fellow go unchallenged. He says that "wars can be caused by a lack of confrontation," an assessment that he attributes to the world losing "the stomach to confront Saddam Hussein." This is completely false, a fiction that is merely another spin on the failed urgency to the Iraq war. He states that Saddam Hussein was "a resurgent threat," an absurd lie. This kind of scurrilous fibbing is what is wrong with this administration and the lack of respect for mid-level intelligence operatives as well as alternative voices. Iraq was surrounded by Saddam haters all around, This included Syria, Turkey, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait (with American forces there and in Qatar and Saudia Arabia and Turkey) and our former Middle-east peace- talks ally, Jordan. Iraq was isolated, confined, constrained, and we had a re-emergence of weapons inspectors inside the country. Former UN weapons inspectors, like Scott Ritter, a former US Marine and Reagan Republican, were adamant that Hussein was a small time dictator with an iron grip on his people internally, but with no emerging military, political, or economic power beyond his confined domain.


A strong military may help us to stay safe, but irrational use of the American military is profoundly dangerous in the world today. We do need an accurate and rational re-deployment of our forces, including bringing the National Guard home, and investing in disaster relief and an expanded Coast Guard capability for search and rescue, for example. The specific effort against Al-Qaida is the forgotten war. We are fighting Iraqi Shiites and threaten Iran.


Mr. Mallary's contention that he knows Senator Clinton's mind, and the other Democratic candidates, about these matters is another error. He asserts that she insists that the "case for war was reasonable at the time." She is not saying that, and has determined that the actual language of the Iranian resolution does not authorize Bush to proceed with military force. He assumes that Senator " Clinton is saying that, despite its awful risks, war can sometimes be the least bad choice." His analysis is naive, perhaps due to his lack of intimacy with actual war, and his association as a fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations should implore him to advance beyond that limited perspective. Senator Clinton has a stronger grasp of military-political rationality than Mr Mallory understands. He uses her as a platform to advance his own re-treaded agenda.
JW
© Copyright 2007 St. Petersburg Times.

(another one bites the dust)